342 ^Ir. .1. L. Bonliote on (he }[artens 



XLV. — On the Martens of the I\Iustela flavigula Group. 

 By J. L. BoNiiOTE, B.A. 



Among the martens tliat liave liitlierto been considered as 

 Mustela flavigula several well-marked geographic subspecies 

 may be distinguished, and one of the forms (.1/. Gioatkinsii) 

 that has been united with them is apparently a distinct and 

 easily recognizable species, only found in the peninsula of 

 India. Tiie synonymy of this group is somewhat lengthy, 

 and when I began to work it out so many small errors and 

 misquotations appeared to have been given, that I have 

 thoroughly studied the subject and have personally verified all 

 the references given. 



The first mention of this animal was made by PtMinant, who 

 described it under the name of " White-cheeked Weesel," 

 from a menagerie specimen whose origin was unknown. 

 There can belittle doubt, however, that the specimen belonged 

 to the form found in Ne|)al, Assam, and southward to Burma, 

 as Pennant stated that the head was black — a character typical 

 of that race. 



Boddacrt, in his ' Elcnchus Aninialium,' was the first to 

 bestow on Pennant's specimen the name of Mustela flavigula, 

 and several other names were also based on the same descrip- 

 tion, -which materially helped to confuse the synonymy ; 

 Galidictis chrysogaster is, however, the only one to which 

 attention need be drawn. This animal is said to be very 

 dark on the back, head, and legs, with white cheeks and a 

 golden-yellow breast and underparts, and is described from a 

 specimen shot at Mussorie in the Himalayas by Mr. R. Gwat- 

 kins. A few years later Horsfield, in his ' Catalogue of the 

 East India Collection,' describes, under the name Maries 

 Gtcatkinsli, a specimen collected in Madras by Mr. (afterwards 

 Sir) Walter Elliot, and states in addition that it belongs to 

 the same species as Mr. Gwatkins' Mussorie specimen ; this, 

 however, is not the case, for, as will be seen later on, the 

 Mussorie specimen, being only an individual of the typical 

 M. flavigula in summer, is specifically distinct from that from 

 Madras. As Horsfield gives a detailed description of the 

 South-Indian form^ comparing it witli the typical M. flavigula, 

 and as the specimen from whicli the description was taken is 

 still in existence in the British Museum, it seems to me 

 necessary to retain the name Givatkinsii for the South-Indian 

 species, of which Elliot's specimen would be the type. 



